posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by Sublimecraft
I doubt we see a widespread enforcement so soon, but since this will significantly save the agencies from lawsuits and complaints the motivation
should be strong.
which would allow government and police to block transmission of information,
including video and photographs, from any public gathering or venue they deem “sensitive”, and “protected from externalities.”
A great piece to this puzzle and I wonder if this will be applied. Imo the cameras should roll constantly regardless of situation, it is in everyone
Apple patented the means to transmit an encoded signal to all wireless devices, commanding them to disable recording functions.
Those policies would be activated by GPS, and WiFi or mobile base-stations, which would ring-fence ("geofence") around a building or a “sensitive
area” to prevent phone cameras from taking pictures or recording video.
Apple may implement the technology, but it would not be Apple's decision to activate the “feature” – it would be down governments, businesses
and network owners to set such policies, analyzes ZDNet technology website.
Ahsooo, ye ole "geofence" eh? Define sensitive area:
The company’s listed “sensitive” venues so far include mostly meetings, the presentation of movies, religious ceremonies, weddings,
funerals, academic lectures, and test-taking environments.
Sounds more for civilians but I bet you are right and some efforts may be used to restrict filming at protests in particular, which to me is one
example where they should absolutely keep the cameras rolling, what's the fear? Oh yea, some officers may not be able to control themselves. Well
put a camera on them, it will help
I am trying to get inside of the police leader's minds and I can't see them choosing not filming at a protest verses filming, ultimately. It makes
more sense to record what actually happened as opposed to depending on hearsay.
Thank you for your contribution, and btw, who is that in your avatar?